The Independentâ€™s
front page head for Wednesday 25 October proclaimed loudly â€œWeâ€™re out
of hereâ€ purportedly the words of General George Casey, the USâ€™s head
military honcho in Iraq. Of course the devil lives in the small print
as any reading â€˜between the linesâ€™ reveals. And in any case, Caseyâ€™s
comments are designed precisely to give the impression that a pullout is imminent when in reality, there is no way the US can leave voluntarily, there is simply too much at stake.

Between
them, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran possess 2/3rds of the worldâ€™s proven
oil reserves, so one way or the other, the US will do everything it can
to make sure not only that it has first dibs on them but also
strategically, that its principal rival, China is denied access.[1]

The
question to ask is whether the current US strategy can do this and this
is the debate (not in public of course) that is obsessing the US ruling
class. And it is within this context that the issue of Iran looms
large. Will the fight over resources extend to Iran either now or in
the near future?

The
military, both in the US and here in the UK are concerned only as to
whether they can carry out their masterâ€™s instructions, all else is hot
air. The media of course, presents the â€˜debateâ€™ in an entirely
different light and understandably so given the overwhelming opposition
to the occupation as well as to any extension of the war to Iran.

Military
â€˜oppositionâ€™ is in reality a recognition that without a) more resources
and/or b) a change in tactics, â€˜winningâ€™ the wars as such, is
impossible but of course donâ€™t tell the public this, especially the
families of dead soldiers. But winning wars is not in and of itself
that important, what is important is keep the damn things going by one
means or another.

Thus
a â€œresidual US presenceâ€ will be needed, effectively for the indefinate
future as all depends on the ability or otherwise of the puppet Iraqi
government to take over the role of the occupier, itself a bit of
classic newsspeak, for what else can one call a â€˜governmentâ€™ pretty
well handpicked by the occupying forces through a completely
stage-managed election other than a puppet one.

The Independent (along with the rest of the corporate media) is itself pretty good at
covering up the actions of the criminal occupation in the way it
chooses to portray the current situation in Iraq judging by its
description of events. Thus the victim of the crime is presented to us
as if it caused the current mayhem, much like a rape victim being
described as â€˜asking for itâ€™ by dressing provocatively.

Patrick Cockburn in a page 3 piece tells us

â€œWhere
did the US go wrong? â€¦ The greatest American mistake was to turn what
could have been presented as liberation into an occupation.â€

Run
that past me again? So, according to Cockburn it was all down to how
the illegal invasion and occupation was presented. Amazing really how
the power of self-deception works (if only he would keep it to himself
and not inflict it on the reader). So no matter how one phrases it
there is no recognition that the current situation is entirely the
result of an illegal invasion in the first place. Instead, we read
elsewhere in the same edition that

â€œThey
[those US voices now allegedly raised in â€˜oppositionâ€™] argue that
current policies have all but failed, as sectarian and anti-American
violence [sic] threaten to overwhelm the country.â€

Note that legitimate opposition to the occupation is described as â€œanti-Americanâ€ but then what else can we expect from the â€˜Independentâ€™?
Worse still, what is actually the resistance â€œthreatens to overwhelm
the countryâ€, but surely isnâ€™t it the occupation thatâ€™s overwhelmed the
country?

Cockburn goes on to tell us that

â€œOne theme has been constant throughout the past three-and-a-half years â€” the Iraqi government [sic] has always been weak.â€

But
of course Cockburn neglects to inform his readers that for much of the
three-and-a-half years there has not been any kind of government at
all, let alone a legitimate one. Thus once again, itâ€™s the victimâ€™s
fault!

After
all this double-speak, Cockburn finally admits that there never has
been a legitimate government nor can there ever be one as long as the
country is occupied, but even his admission is tainted as he couches it
as follows

â€œAll
Iraqi governments, unelected and elected [sic], have been tainted and
de-legitimised by being dependent on the US â€¦ Real authority had
remained in the hands of the US.â€

How can they even be dependent on the US when the real power actually resides with the occupying forces? This is merely playing with words,
for the Iraqi â€˜governmentâ€™ is the creation/result of the occupation in
the first place.

Cockburnâ€™s
words end up being â€˜all things to all menâ€™, itâ€™s merely a question of
interpretation which is why his story ends up being a mealy-mouthed
rationalisation for mass murder and genocide and by not admitting to
the reader that the invasion was illegal and thus everything that
followed was a priori illegitimate let alone became â€œde-legitimisedâ€.

Worse
still, the reportage entirely masks the real issues namely, can the
objectives of the USUK be continued under some other guise? Consider
the problem confronted by the corporate and state-run media in selling
the imperial line: The original rationale, WMD, unravelled years ago so
a switch was made to bringing â€˜democracyâ€™ to Iraq and more broadly, to
the Middle East. This too has unravelled not only because there is no
sign of so-called Western democracy but more importantly, resistance to
foreign occupation has gone from strength to strength.

So
how can â€˜staying the courseâ€™ be presented as withdrawal? Simple, pass
the buck to an Iraqi â€˜governmentâ€™ whether it can really govern or not.
Who cares if the country falls apart, what counts is access to the
resources it possesses. Behind the scenes, US control will continue
through the use of heavily fortified bases and endless air attacks from
any one of forward bases scattered throughout the region, Kuwait which
has US army and air-force bases, Qatar where its Centcom regional
headquarters are located, Bahrain, HQ of the US fifth-fleet and Oman
which also has major US air bases. Further afield they also have bases
in Djibuti as well as Diego Garcia. (The UK will pull out so it can
concentrate on trying to â€˜pacifyâ€™ Afghanistan.)

To
achieve this end it is necessary to foment â€˜sectarianâ€™ violence,
leading to a de facto partition of Iraq into three areas. The logic is
merciless; one third of Iraqâ€™s oil reserves are in the Kurdish
dominated north, much of the remainder in the â€˜Shia dominatedâ€™ south
and finally, the Sunni â€˜dominatedâ€™ central region (henceforth to be
called Babylon).[2] Thus the MSM has emphasized the â€˜sectarian
violenceâ€™ as the rationale for a Balkanisation of Iraq. Iraq is now
designated as â€˜ungovernableâ€™ but all responsibility for creating this
situation now resides with the Iraqis. So the Independent story
is headlined â€œFrom â€˜mission accomplishedâ€™ to mission impossible for the
Iraqisâ€ (25/10/06)! The buck has been successfully passed and the
occupation â€˜Pontius Pilatedâ€™. Media mission accomplished.

Of
course nowhere in media coverage of the situation do we read anything
about what the Iraqi people want, their wishes are considered
irrelevant even though there is plenty of evidence that Iraqis,
regardless of their alleged tribal or ethnic allegiances are totally
opposed to any breakup of Iraq. The voice of the resistance simply
doesnâ€™t get a mention at all, it is dismissed as either â€˜al-Quâ€™edaâ€™ or
various â€˜militiasâ€™ representing various and sundry â€˜sectarianâ€™
interests. As ever, the in-built racist assumptions.

The
degree to which those who write imperial propaganda are part of the
problem is perhaps best exemplified by the following piece in an Independent op-ed by regular contributor Mary Dejevsky, yet another apologist for
British imperial policy but one incredulously framed pretty much in the
first person, as if itâ€™s her empire (current or former) thatâ€™s
coming apart at the seams (again), as she tries to compare the â€˜Suez
Crisisâ€™ to the Iraqi â€˜crisisâ€™. Note that it is still described as a
â€œcrisisâ€ as opposed to an illegal invasion, conjured up in secret
(hidden even from Parliament) between the Brits, French and Israelis.
Today it is called â€˜liberationâ€™ or generically, the â€˜war on terrorâ€™.

In this incredible piece of flim-flam, we read the following:

â€œMine
is the generation that grew up in the shadow of Suez â€¦ our
psychological inheritance was Britainâ€™s humiliation at Suez â€¦ that was
all Suez seemed to be: an ill-defined national humiliation that
supplied the assumed context for almost everything out there in the
wider world â€¦ â€œThe Americans sold us down the riverâ€ â€¦ The parallels
with Iraq are many, if not a complete match. Like Saddam Hussein with
his refusal to give up EVEN FICTIONAL weapons of mass destruction,
Nasser seemed to nurture ambitions that threatened vital western
interests â€¦ Then, as before Iraq, a good deal secrecy obscured the
British governmentâ€™s decision-making. And then, as now, post-invasion
planning was lamentable.â€ â€” â€˜The shadow of Suez hangs heavy todayâ€™ Mary
Dejevsky, the Independent, Wednesday, 24 October 2006.

And, as ever, Dejevskyâ€™s master race delusions about pretty much everyone east of the Danube are revealed as she tells us

â€œThey
[the British] also miscalculated the likely response of the population
in the countries they were invadingâ€”and showed great reluctance to heed
the advice of respected [sic] experts.â€

It
seems that no matter which page you turn to nor who writes what passes
for news or analysis, we find a member of an army of apologists for the
imperium, with a ready answer for whatever calamity befalls our poor,
battered planet and its people.

And without a hint of irony, Dejevesky ends her piece as follows

â€œMust
it really take another Suez or another Iraq, to cure our elite of their
delusions of global grandeur? Was it not quite enough of a humiliation
the first time around?â€